₦airaland Forum

Gombs:
Oh Please! Spare me the baloney!
Now you want to look good about it, right? Leading exposer huh? SMH

You don't seem to understand what is going on bro. The sore loser isn't denying the accusations- he is asking for the link. Why? because the link got lost when NL was hacked. If he claims he never made the statements then we need not wait for the devil himself- the father of lies, for he is fully manifest in anyone who can make such barefaced lies. We can ask Bidam and I believe even Trustman was on the said thread. If my memory serves me well Trustman tried to correct him to no avail. In the other WOF thread or so, Bidam challenged him with the same fact and the "thing" corrected him by saying "I didn't say Eve slept with Satan" he meant "the serpent" and he even thanked me for properly quoting him. Now challenged with his crimes against the scriptures in front of his friends, he wants to deny the rank heresies he spewed thinking it made him a maverick. Hopeless joke.

vooks:
kiddo,
mbaemeka claimed that I had posted that Paul corrected Peter in Galatia. When I challenged him to back up his claim, he dithered. That is a MINOR mistake but I never did it and he used it to paint me as scripture-illiterate. Is this some self defence stuff you are taught at Christ Embassy, maligning your opponents?

I gave you your quote and you asked me for the link to it probably because you edited the post forgetting that I had already quoted you before you did so. I even gave you a lifeline by telling you to claim that was not what you meant by your post. I didn't use any one post to paint you as a scripture illiterate. You have done so consistently through your posts. You foolhardily claimed that Jesus didn't take his blood to the Most holy place in heaven and when I showed you the scriptures in Hebrews you termed it a "pentecostal heresy". The same person who said "remission of sins had nothing to do with the shedding of blood". You are painting your scriptural incapacitations all on your own.

goD mbaemeka,
So all we have are your MEMORY? How convenient! And that you took all this long to recall that! Puny brained goD

My post about Paul rebuking Peter are ON this thread, where did I say that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?

mbaemeka:
You don't seem to understand what is going on bro. The sore loser isn't denying the accusations- he is asking for the link. Why? because the link got lost when NL was hacked. If he claims he never made the statements then we need not wait for the devil himself- the father of lies, for he is fully manifest in anyone who can make such barefaced lies. We can ask Bidam and I believe even Trustman was on the said thread. If my memory serves me well Trustman tried to correct him to no avail. In the other WOF thread or so, Bidam challenged him with the same fact and the "thing" corrected him by saying "I didn't say Eve slept with Satan" he meant "the serpent" and he even thanked me for properly quoting him. Now challenged with his crimes against the scriptures in front of his friends, he wants to deny the rank heresies he spewed thinking it made him a maverick. Hopeless joke.

Post your quote of my post BEFORE editing. Or you edited that too? You are an overgrown baby, a Christ Embassy extremist who would gladly lie and kill for your goD

Don't inject Christ ascension here and thereby catch many by 'surprise' Christ ascended to heaven 40 days AFTER resurrection. The Sunday ascension is hare-brained attempt at theology

mbaemeka:
I gave you your quote and you asked me for the link to it probably because you edited the post forgetting that I had already quoted you before you did so. I even gave you a lifeline by telling you to claim that was not what you meant by your post. I didn't use any one post to paint you as a scripture illiterate. You have done so consistently through your posts. You foolhardily claimed that Jesus didn't take his blood to the Most holy place in heaven and when I showed you the scriptures in Hebrews you termed it a "pentecostal heresy". The same person who said "remission of sins had nothing to do with the shedding of blood". You are painting your scriptural incapacitations all on your own.

vooks:
goD mbaemeka,
So all we have are your MEMORY? How convenient! And that you took all this long to recall that! Puny brained goD

Who is this child? Go through my posts from the get-go. I have been saying it since. You who claims to "comprehend things and read the words instead of the spaces with his non-puny brain" should be shamefaced that you are just grasping it. Those who know me in person will almost unanimously vote me as the least likely with a puny brain. I am putting this out to you since we are in the season of telling people we are millionaires or employers of labor.

vooks:
Post your quote of my post BEFORE editing. Or you edited that too? You are an overgrown baby, a Christ Embassy extremist who would gladly lie and kill for your goD

Don't inject Christ ascension here and thereby catch many by 'surprise' Christ ascended to heaven 40 days AFTER resurrection. The Sunday ascension is hare-brained attempt at theology

*Ignored*

Post your quote of my post before editing and grow up and learn to tell decent lies. It don't matter what everyone thinks of here, what matters is the contents you post here. They range from stupid to heretical. You are just good at regurgitating Oyaks nonsense without thinking.

mbaemeka:
Who is this child? Go through my posts from the get-go. I have been saying it since. You who claims to "comprehend things and read the words instead of the spaces with his non-puny brain" should be shamefaced that you are just grasping it. Those who know me in person will almost unanimously vote me as the least likely with a puny brain. I am putting this out to you since we are in the season of telling people we are millionaires or employers of labor.

How many seconds would it take you to dig up your own post on this thread that's barely 72 hours?
You are shamelessly dishonest. You won't pull the thread because it is nonexistent and unlike the hacking phoney story, this is inexcusable. Grown ups take responsibility for their words. You are everything but that

mbaemeka:
*Ignored*

vooks:
Post your quote of my post before editing and grow up and learn to tell decent lies. It don't matter what everyone thinks of here, what matters is the contents you post here. They range from stupid to heretical. You are just good at regurgitating Oyaks nonsense without thinking.

*ignored*

vooks:
How many seconds would it take you to dig up your own post on this thread that's barely 72 hours?
You are shamelessly dishonest. You won't pull the thread because it is nonexistent and unlike the hacking phoney story, this is inexcusable. Grown ups take responsibility for their words. You are everything but that

Mr "there-is-nothing-like-without-shedding-of-blood-there-is-no-forgiveness-of-sins" I made a post to you on the matter and I showed you your quote. So save the theatrics for the employees you have and beat it!

Mbaemeko,
I demand you provide proof of your claims that I posted or insinuated that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia and not Antioch as recorded in Galatians 2 failure to which I demand an unconditional apology.

Failure to this, it will be clear before all that you are a serial liar, who the father of all lies is,and I will not hesitate to remind you this as long as I run into you on this site. You also stand condemned before God for LYING

mbaemeka:
*ignored*

vooks:
Mbaemeko,
I demand you provide proof of your claims that I posted or insinuated that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia and not Antioch as recorded in Galatians 2 failure to which I demand an unconditional apology.

Failure to this, it will be clear before all that you are a serial liar, who the father of all lies is,and I will not hesitate to remind you this as long as I run into you on this site. You also stand condemned before God for LYING

Bla bla bla. You are my groupie that's what you are. Any day you don't mention me on NL you have failed in your duties as one. Don't feel jilted. The privilege is afforded to an exclusive preserve.

Don't forget to call me a calvinist too. I will like to see your friends publicly rebuke you for that.

You are clinging to hot air, you want to catch me in error so I can back off from pointing out your unintelligent lies. Post all my posts her but I wil not back off. You need to realize that you are dealing with a man not a kid and am least intimidated by your private curses nor fickle attempts at blackmail. You have fatally failed with your double ascension theory and now you are onto the blood of Jesus. Keep digging puny brains

You adduce evidence NOT by paraphrasing off your rear end but by posting the very post I made or a quote of the same. That way others reading this thread can refer to the quote for themselves instead of trusting the memory of a goD before whole Christ must kneel and beg to take home.

mbaemeka:
Mr "there-is-nothing-like-without-shedding-of-blood-there-is-no-forgiveness-of-sins" I made a post to you on the matter and I showed you your quote. So save the theatrics for the employees you have and beat it!

vooks:
You are clinging to hot air, you want to catch me in error so I can back off from pointing out your unintelligent lies. Post all my posts her but I wil not back off. You need to realize that you are dealing with a man not a kid and am least intimidated by your private curses nor fickle attempts at blackmail. You have fatally failed with your double ascension theory and now you are onto the blood of Jesus. Keep digging puny brains
You adduce evidence NOT by paraphrasing off your rear end but by posting the very post I made or a quote of the same. That way others reading this thread can refer to the quote for themselves instead of trusting the memory of a goD before whole Christ must kneel and beg to take home.

Save the super story. I quoted your post verbatim- there was no paraphrasing. Let that "non-puny brain" of yours get to work by proof-reading one of the posts I directed at you. Your post is there. If you also have any iota of honesty you would apologize for belaboring the questions you have asked me knowing that I had responded to them since yesterday.

I apologize to all intelligent primates for confusing you for one of them

You have ZERO evidence on BabaGnoni and your imaginary Eve-sex romping reason being NL was hacked
You have ZERO evidence on on your Paul-rebuked-Peter-in-Galatia reason being I edited' it out but not before you 'quoted' me yet still you don't have the quote

Gombs beats you in offering a half-hearted apology when cornered, otherwise you are all small boys in your thinking. It is sad that human traditions have reduced you into this; unintelligent petty liars.

Once again, when and where did I claim that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?
Burden of proof remains on the one making the allegation not me but I had noted that WOFers especially the moronic ones have a tendency of attempting to shift this responsibility to those who question them

mbaemeka:
Save the super story. I quoted your post verbatim- there was no paraphrasing. Let that "non-puny brain" of yours get to work by proof-reading one of the posts I directed at you. Your post is there. If you also have any iota of honesty you would apologize for belaboring the questions you have asked me knowing that I had responded to them since yesterday.

Calvin was a great man, you should read his Institutes some day. He had the character and brains, it would b highly offensive to his legacy calling you Calvin or Calvinist. What you clearly are is a an arrogant shameless liar who has actually beaten Satan the father of lies in his game of accusing our brethren. I pray you grow out of it as you mature. I badly hope it is a teenage proclivity

mbaemeka:
Bla bla bla. You are my groupie that's what you are. Any day you don't mention me on NL you have failed in your duties as one. Don't feel jilted. The privilege is afforded to an exclusive preserve.

Don't forget to call me a calvinist too. I will like to see your friends publicly rebuke you for that.

vooks:
I apologize to all intelligent primates for confusing you for one of them
You have ZERO evidence on BabaGnoni and your imaginary Eve-sex romping reason being NL was hacked
You have ZERO evidence on on your Paul-rebuked-Peter-in-Galatia reason being I edited' it out but not before you 'quoted' me yet still you don't have the quote
Gombs beats you in offering a half-hearted apology when cornered, otherwise you are all small boys in your thinking. It is sad that human traditions have reduced you into this; unintelligent petty liars.
Once again, when and where did I claim that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?
Burden of proof remains on the one making the allegation not me but I had noted that WOFers especially the moronic ones have a tendency of attempting to shift this responsibility to those who question them

I was 100 steps ahead of you again as usual. I never referred to you as an intelligent being of any sort. I feel for the people who work for you (if we can go by anything you say). You cannot make an honest penny in your entire God-forsaken life.

mbaemeka:
^^^This should have been the topic clincher.

Wish the preachers who turn out tons of devotionals and books on first fruit offerings as a christian doctrine and duty understood it that way.

I didn't say he preached it as a christian doctrine. I said he practiced it. I have heard Tunde Bakare say the same things about Firstfruits and tithes too. And by "heard" I mean I heard him live not that I read a particular link or thread.

No wahala then. It was his personal decision and i can't quarrel with that but i still wonder what he gave as first fruits offering since he affirmed that first fruits in the new testament had nothing to do with financial giving or money. It means he was engaged in something he knew to be redundant to a christian.

Nope @ the emboldened. Every instance I mentioned carried the principle of firstfruits giving long before the Mosaic law. Recall I said firstfruits referred to the first and probably the best. That's the allusion given to the term all through the scriptures- old and new.

Genesis 4:4Amplified Bible (AMP)
4 And Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat portions. And the Lord had respect and regard for Abel and for his offering

Genesis 22:2Amplified Bible (AMP)
2 [God] said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I will tell you.

@the bolded, you're not exactly correct. once again Hagin helped us by listing the various instances of first fruits in the NT and only the one referencing Christ can be said to be about first and best. For the others, even if the ''first'' in the ''first fruits'' indicates first of course, there's nothing to indicate first means best. see them again with my comments in blue

"Firstfruits" in the New Testament primarily refers to Jesus Christ. He is the Firstfruits—the first One to be raised from the dead—and represented all those who would follow after him. - Christ is of course the best there can ever be
Other New Testament uses of "firstfruits" refer to the "firstfruits of the Spirit" in the life of the believer. In other words,
"firstfruits" refers to the initial working of the Spirit in a believer's life—the first evidence of His indwelling us. It refers to those signs of His Presence in us now, as compared to what He will do with us later when we have our glorified bodies. - Does this mean the first fruits in a believers life is the best he can ever get?

Another use of the word "firstfruits" is totally figurative. It has to do with the first individuals to be born again in a certain location. - Does it mean these first people to believe are the best of that location?

Also while the Abel situation might support your stance, the Abraham and Isaac issue makes no allusion or takes any resemblance to the idea of first fruits. He was an only Son and that was the basis for asking for him to see if Abraham could stomach the loss.

True but the principle is what he expressed. What he did was akin to what God asked Abraham to do. Recall that the Moabites grew up under the tutelage of the Israelites somewhat. They must have learned this principle from them.

@the bolded is purely your own conjecture. It has no basis in scripture or History. Human sacrifice had been a part of pagan history before Abraham was asked to offer Isaac. Moab sacrifices children in the fire because Molech desires it and God warned Israel against it with promises of dire consequences (Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5). They didn't learn that abominable practice from Israel.

God respected the man's offering. I believe the bible gives strong indications as to that regard or is it easier to believe that God told the Israelites something but then the "deity" of the Moabites upturned God's word/prophecy? God said he would successfully "deliver the Moabites also into their hands" but after the man's sacrifice the same scriptures state that "there was great indignation against Israel and the people were forced to go back to their land". This means the Moabites weren't delivered to Israel's hands again and I strongly believe that only God almighty could have done that for them.

@the first bolded, are you telling me God accepts human sacrifice? If you say God respected the man's offering, it means you believe God accepted it. If God refused to carry out his promise to the Israelites because he respected or accepted Mesha's offering, is it not possible that Israel could have had the full promise fulfilled if they could match or exceed this dangerous and abominable offering of this pagan king?

I'm sure you use bible commentaries. see what this has to say here

''And there was great indignation [R.V. wrath] against Israel] The word rendered ‘wrath’ or ‘indignation’ is nearly always used of the wrath of God against offenders. But it appears difficult to take it in that sense here. God’s promise through Elisha was that Israel should conquer, and they were bidden to smite every fenced city and every choice city. Therefore unless we conceive that underlying God’s message there was conceived some point beyond which they were not to go, and that the forcing of the king to offer his son was of this character, it is hard to see how they could be held to blame and worthy of God’s wrath. They were in no position to know what the king intended, nor, when they saw him on the wall, to prevent his sacrifice. It seems better therefore to take ‘wrath’ in this place to signify ‘wrath of men’. The word is found in Ecclesiastes 5:17, ‘All his days he eateth in darkness, and is sore vexed and hath sickness and wrath’ (R.V.). This can be either of what the man feels himself, or of what others feel towards him. Taking the latter sense, the meaning here would be that in the minds of the men of Judah and Edom there rose indignation that they had been brought to partake in an expedition which led to such a dreadful sacrifice. If we apply the word to the feelings of the Israelites themselves, we get the sense that they were grieved and angry at so terrible a result, and so hastened to leave the dreadful scene. The margin of R.V., ‘There came great wrath upon Israel’, alludes to the anger of God, but it seems, as the preposition is ‘against’, to be better to understand that the allies were grieved at having shared in so disastrous a warfare. Josephus says the kings pitied the need which the Moabite monarch had felt when he offered up his child, and so withdrew''.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/2_kings/3.htm

Do you disagree with it?

God sacrificed his firstfruit, Jesus his son. He "offered" his son FOR us and not TO us. If you for example, dedicated/offered your first child for the work of God, that is a form of firstfruit offerings. You would be following the principle. That's exactly what I meant and that is why some people give their first salary to the work of God.

I can't stop anybody from giving their first salary to the work of God or like the widow, give their whole living to the work of God or to anybody. I'm simply against making it a doctrine for Christians. You've already said you don't agree with it being preached as a christian doctrine so i guess we are good.

vooks:
Calvin was a great man, you should read his Institutes some day. He had the character and brains, it would b highly offensive to his legacy calling you Calvin or Calvinist. What you clearly are is a an arrogant shameless liar who has actually beaten Satan the father of lies in his game of accusing our brethren. I pray you grow out of it as you mature. I badly hope it is a teenage proclivity

Boring and disjointed. Even your memory is nothing to write home about. You already called me a calvinist or do you require the same verbatim quote again? And even after I show it to you, you would keep asking me the same questions like a jilted troll. Groupie.

mbaemeka,
Here is a snippet from John Wenham's Easter Enigma;
http://www.graceelgin.org/documents/EasterEnigma2.pdf

I would have mailed you my copy but the book I bought back in 2004 was destroyed when my house flooded. Water ran out and I left some taps opened, I came back in the evening only to find my house with about 5 centimeters of water. I lost my beloved Enigma but I narrowly escaped electrocution.

Remember you don't harmonize Jesus' birth with Malachi's Elijah just because they are separated by a mere leaf, you harmonize related accounts or events. Puny brains easily overheat. Watch out

Did Calvin teach that blood comes from the mother and not the father?
If he did, I would not call that boneheaded since he was hundreds of years behind us. You on the other hand, are only fit for parroting garbage with eloquent incoherence. The saving grace is you are not alone, Pat Robertson recently claimed that you can catch Aids by using towels in Africa, Uganda or something

mbaemeka:
Boring and disjointed. Even your memory is nothing to write home about. You already called me a calvinist or do you require the same verbatim quote again? And even after I show it to you, you would keep asking me the same questions like a jilted troll. Groupie.

nannymcphee:
Gombs, I haven't forgotten about the questions I asked about CE. I just want you to be done here before I pick that up again

mbaemeka, Image123, I want to know your stance on firstfruit taught by Hagin?

i don't do firstfruits. Nothing wrong with anyone that does it though. It's a type of offering.

I give it to you for being ahead of me in spinning yarns to cover your lies. Why it don't surprise me is because it is the norm at CE. They lied about the impending divorce until it could not be hid. Did you ever pray that the marriage fail not? How could you when all those were lies of lucifer?

I can assure you that you will grow old but growing up am not sure.
Where and when did I claim that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?

mbaemeka:
I was 100 steps ahead of you again as usual. I never referred to you as an intelligent being of any sort. I feel for the people who work for you (if we can go by anything you say). You cannot make an honest penny in your entire God-forsaken life.

Candour:
No wahala then. It was his personal decision and i can't quarrel with that but i still wonder what he gave as first fruits offering since he affirmed that first fruits in the new testament had nothing to do with financial giving or money. It means he was engaged in something he knew to be redundant to a christian.

Yes the word firstfruit as used in NT never referred to financial giving or money. That's all his statement meant. He was saying so to debunk the claim that giving firstfruits is a doctrine in Christianity. BUT the principle of firstfruits (as giving money or produce/livestock) is replete in the OT and one can practice it without being coaxed to do so. Hagin did exactly that- with money. Same way some CEO decided to give 90% of his income to his church and he told many people that it was the source of his great wealth. Of course, it is not a doctrine. But the CEO practiced it regardless.

@the bolded, you're not exactly correct. once again Hagin helped us by listing the various instances of first fruits in the NT and only the one referencing Christ can be said to be about first and best. For the others, even if the ''first'' in the ''first fruits'' indicates first of course, there's nothing to indicate first means best. see them again with my comments in blue

I saw the comments in blue and I think it is misapplied to the import of my posts. If a Farmer's first tuber of yam isn't so bulky he may decide to wait and offer the biggest or bulkiest which he may interpret as his best. It's all about the principle. Saying that "Does this mean the first fruits in a believers life is the best he can ever get?" or "Does it mean these first people to believe are the best of that location?" to me, is OP. If my first salary is $12,000 and I offer it as my firstfruit and the following year I am raised to say $15,000 it has become my new best and I can decide to offer it whole or give the increase. That's my understanding.

the Abraham and Isaac issue makes no allusion or takes any resemblance to the idea of first fruits. He was an only Son and that was the basis for asking for him to see if Abraham could stomach the loss.

Well, that's exactly why the principle applies here- because Isaac wasn't the only son Abraham had. God even had to add the caveat "the one that you love" because I am sure Papa Abraham would have offered Ismael without flinching

@the bolded is purely your own conjecture. It has no basis in scripture or History. Human sacrifice had been a part of pagan history before Abraham was asked to offer Isaac. Moab sacrifices children in the fire because Molech desires it and God warned Israel against it with promises of dire consequences (Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5). They didn't learn that abominable practice from Israel.

Again you missed the point I was trying to make. The Moabites learnt the principle of FIRSTFRUITS and not human sacrifice. Moab could have offered "any" of his sons but the bible says he offered his first; the one who would have replaced him as king. He offered his best!

@the first bolded, are you telling me God accepts human sacrifice? If you say God respected the man's offering, it means you believe God accepted it. If God refused to carry out his promise to the Israelites because he respected or accepted Mesha's offering, is it not possible that Israel could have had the full promise fulfilled if they could match or exceed this dangerous and abominable offering of this pagan king?

I didn't say God accepts human sacrifice. God respects/permits sacrifices of all kinds without necessarily accepting them. Someone can give his manhood to a native doctor as a ritual for wealth and become very wealthy. Of course, the man didn't offer his manhood to God but if God didn't prevent the man from getting the wealth we can say he permitted it. I am not even considering the situation were a christian is put into the equation and by that I mean: if a christian and a pagan are vying for a job and both of them study equally hard for it but the christian prays to God and gets the word that he will be successful while the pagan decides to "donate" his mother to his deity and gets the go ahead from his Dibia, and at the end of the day the pagan gets the job can't we conclude that God permitted the pagan's sacrifice? That seems like the only logical conclusion.

Do you disagree with it?

The commentary is neither here nor there as he seems pusillanimous to assert the obvious fact which is: that whatever permutations we give to the scenario it is clear that God's promise about delivering the city to Israel wasn't fulfilled and that this happened at the sacrifice of the Moabite king should not be equally overlooked.

I'm simply against making it a doctrine for Christians. You've already said you don't agree with it being preached as a christian doctrine so i guess we are good

I agree.

vooks:
I give it to you for being ahead of me in spinning yarns to cover your lies. Why it don't surprise me is because it is the norm at CE. They lied about the impending divorce until it could not be hid. Did you ever pray that the marriage fail not? How could you when all those were lies of lucifer?

I can assure you that you will grow old but growing up am not sure.
Where and when did I claim that Paul rebuked Peter in Galatia?

*ignored*

vooks:
mbaemeka,
Here is a snippet from John Wenham's Easter Enigma;
http://www.graceelgin.org/documents/EasterEnigma2.pdf

I would have mailed you my copy but the book I bought back in 2004 was destroyed when my house flooded. Water ran out and I left some taps opened, I came back in the evening only to find my house with about 5 centimeters of water. I lost my beloved Enigma but I narrowly escaped electrocution.

Remember you don't harmonize Jesus' birth with Malachi's Elijah just because they are separated by a mere leaf, you harmonize related accounts or events. Puny brains easily overheat. Watch out

I couldn't get a yawning emoticon so please manage this

vooks:
Did Calvin teach that blood comes from the mother and not the father?
If he did, I would not call that boneheaded since he was hundreds of years behind us. You on the other hand, are only fit for parroting garbage with eloquent incoherence. The saving grace is you are not alone, Pat Robertson recently claimed that you can catch Aids by using towels in Africa, Uganda or something

Unfortunate children you have. I would pray for them this night. As per your memory Let me just leave it at that.

Gombs:
Aii bro
But BabaGnoni didn't refute the claim on the thread, rather got nannymcphee in a slap mode! I felt her fury bro

Omo, that incidence gets me laughing hard anytime i'm reminded. Nanny funny oh, ah ah.
She said "if I could see you face to face, i'd have given you a piece of my mind, lol. Ol boy, take cover mode was it oh.

dp

Galatians 3-10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them. But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'The just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "The man who does them shall live by them." Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us {for it is written, " Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."} that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the gentiles in Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the spirit of faith. V's 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of the mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promise of God? Certainly not" For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith is Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. BUT BEFORE FAITH CAME" we were kept under guard by the LAW, KEPT FOR THE FAITH which would after ward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. BUT AFTER FAITH HAS COME, we are no longer under a tutor. So their you have it, are you by promise of faith, or are you under the law. And tithing was a law.

vooks:
Am really liking the way WOFers shift the burden of proof;
-' nowhere are we commanded NOT to tithe therefore tithing is cool'
-'nowhere are we commanded NOT to command Angels therefore we can command them'

But this line of reasoning can be applied to so many things and lead to absurd practices being incorporated into Chriatianity. For instance,
-nowhere are we told NOT to pray facing Jerusalem,
-nowhere are we told NOT to offer free will offerings that have nothing to do with sin (why not offer Bulls in this manner)

A more sane approach should be dissecting all scriptures with Angels and observing their manner of interaction with God's people whether in NT or OT.
1. Are there incidences of angels being put under man's command?
2. Do we have records outside the scriptures of the primitive church where this was practiced?
3. When FIRST did this doctrine of commanding Angels emerge?

Image123:
Omo, that incidence gets me laughing hard anytime i'm reminded. Nanny funny oh, ah ah.
She said "if I could see you face to face, i'd have given you a piece of my mind, lol. Ol boy, take cover mode was it oh.

^^^
Laughing is very good and solves problems
- It is fun, free and easy to use
Laughter is a good medicine. Welcome to the club Image123

BabaGnoni:
^^^
Laughing is very good and solves problems
- It is fun, free and easy to use
Laughter is a good medicine. Welcome to the club Image123

yes oh, you sef no laugh? You too dey irksome sometimes oh, shey you know? Am i in literature class, hahaha.